ANZLF Adjustable Neck Joint Group Discussion

[Tom Morici]

Dennis,

When you say this:

It is true that I GREATLY prefer women that wear high heels to men that wear high heels.

Im not sure if I am relieved or a bit nervous. Sounds like you are not opposed to men that wear high heels.

Keep in mind I live in a small town, the majority of the people here
are cowboys and cowgirls. No silly stuff like that here.

Tom

[Dennis Leahy]

Dennis,

When you say this:

It is true that I GREATLY prefer women that wear high heels to men that wear high heels.

Im not sure if I am relieved or a bit nervous. Sounds like you are not opposed to men that wear high heels.

Tom

Tom,

If you slip into a pair of high heels, you do not need to be nervous with me. I promise not to bother you.

Dennis

[Tom Morici]

Dennis,

Good one! If I was clever I would have a good response.

I did want to ask what Cad program you used for your drawing back on
page 4, looks similar to the Turbo-Cad that I use.

One thing I did learn from that post, is you stated that you adjusted the neck down 1 deg. This is correct when you are talking about the nut end of the neck. I think of it at the body joint and the neck being adjusted up.
Sure is easy to get confused even though we both are saying the same thing.

Tom

[Dennis Leahy]

Yes, Tom, "one man's ceiling is another man's floor", and so what I saw as dropping the neck down 1° was indeed the same as rotating the body up by 1°. Just think how hard this must be for our friends in the Southern Hemisphere who also have to contend with doing all of this upside down! Crikey!

I have a copy of DesignCAD 3D MAX v17, which I have recently seen on Ebay for $13 (certainly available for under $30 anytime.) I have not used TurboCAD, but have heard good things about it. I used to do CAD drafting for cabinet shops and architectural millwork shops using both DesignCAD and AutoCAD. There are things the more expensive programs can do, but if someone just wanted an inexpensive CAD program to draw guitars and other instruments, or a floorplan for a house, I'd steer them to DesignCAD.

Dennis

[Dominic]

Dennis,
If we assume that doing things upside down (and back to front) leads to crazy outcomes, then take a look at where the bulk of the worlds crazyness is, it would be very hard to conclude that Australia is anything but the right way up.
Dom

[Dennis Leahy]

Ouch, and touche, Dom!

Yes, we have more guns and crazy people willing to use them in the US than most countries have people. Then, we have a government willing to drop a nuke on you if you fart upwind.

Maybe we are the upside-down ones after all.

Dennis

[Dominic]

Sorry Dennis, Not singling out the US. I just meant the Nth Hemisphere generally compare with here.

Just a word of warning, don't go hitch-hiking in outback Australia.

Shhh, I've said enough already.

[Craig]

Here's a couple of shots of the ferrules in a pointy heel for Dennis ,and any other stiletto folk.





This was a surprise to me ! When you are looking down on the heel , the ferrules become heart shaped



Whadoyareckon?


HEEL & FRETBOARD POCKET ;

Dave takes out 5 mm. for the heel, so I'm going along with that depth.

My thinking on the method is the same as Allens , from a previous post. Fix the heel to the guitar body and scribe the outline with a scalpel or new pointy exacto blade. Clear with a chisel . Much the same way I, and many others do the end graft,.

Before scribing the heel outline , the fretboard would first have to be sitting in it's own pocket, so maybe that's the first thing I should have addressed.

I'm going to have the neck extension 12 mm thick ( without fretboard ) which will allow for my two carbon fibre rods full length of the neck. 8 mm depth will be taken for the pocket floor and available tilt space . If I were to have the soundboard 3mm. thick , it would only require the headblock tongue to be 17 mm. FINISHED THICKNESS]


I am also considering having the fretboard overhang the pocket , so I'm working on a 45 mm width for the fretboard pocket . Dave , I wonder if you could tell us how you go about this ?





Guess a straight wider type heel would be easier than a stilitto type.
You could probably be a bit clever and use a little router or dremmel set up , but you want a seamless type fit.
Has anyone any other ideas or thoughts on this ?




Cheers Craig

[Allen]

The new heel looks great Craig. I've managed to find the 1/2" rod, but there isn't any place in Cairns that carries the 3/8". Have to do a mail order if I want to go that route, so I've been considering the MRK 1 version.

As for cutting the pocket, I'm thinking the scalpel and chisel is still the most fool proof method. You could use the dremel with a router base, but I think the very sharp chisel will do a better job.

[Dennis Leahy]

Wow, Craig, that's a fantastic mockup!

I think a Dremel to cut out the majority of the pocket may still be a good idea, but unless you have a CNC neck and a template to cut to the edge, I think the knife scoring and sharp chisel is the way to go. When I did it, I used a carving knife backwards for the initial scoring, which gave me better control.

Remember the edges of the guitar heel need to be flat for a few mm, so that as the neck goes in and out, the gap remains consistent.

Great work!

Dennis

[Craig]

Allen , I'm pleased you mentioned the MK. 1 version again ( captured screw system ).
I have to admit that the one screw adjustment appeals to me . I'm also very happy with my captured screw system itself. Great design me thinks ( modesty gone out the window it seems )

My only concern with the MK.1 is the captured screw into the T-Nut . There is an amount of play in the T-Nut ,( as has any nut and bolt ),although it appears to be side play mostly.I'm guessing the mortice and tenon would take care of that side play ,so maybe my concerns are unfounded. I tryed thread tape , ( as did Dennis ) , and this worked , but would have doubts about it's durability in the long term, with constant adjustments. What's really needed here, is a mock-up of this system with mortice and tenon ,plus a force equal to the string's pull , to see if any of my concerns are warranted. ( any takers ? , as I'm short of time at the moment ?) . It may be, that the combination of string pull plus the mortice and tenon, make this a non issue. This is the reason I came up with the MK. 2 . It's thread is locked by bearing against the lower set screw

Allen , you will need the 3/8 brass rod for pivot bearing inserts in any case. (unless you use steel ),,,,,,,,steel can rust

If you are unable to get the 3/8 " brass rod easily , I can send some your way , as I have some in stock. ( I use it to make my barrel nuts )

Cheers , Craig

[Tom Morici]

Craig,

I think your heel with the 2 ferrules look great!

In regards to mortising a straight or stilleto shaped heel into the neck end
of the body I would use a router and a fixture to do it.

A CNC should not be needed to make an accurate fixture, if you stuff your first attemp just do it again. I admit I am a router fan and will take the time to make a fixture. Once you have the fixture you can cut any joint no glue tight over and over.

It would take one fixture to cut the heel shape and one to cut the matching mortise.

If I was only building one i would use hand tools. Some prefer to use
hand tools so I only offer this as a suggestion.

Tom

[Dennis Leahy]

Hi Tom,

What I meant about CNC was that if a luthier is carving necks and especially curved neck heels by hand, then they will all be a bit different. If the neck heels have slightly different shapes, the jig for the pocket will not work.

However, it still makes sense to me to make a jig and router out most of the pocket, within the bounds of your typical neck heel outline. But I would still deeply score the line first, at least on brittle woods, to cut down the possibility of the router bit taking a visible chip from the side wood.

I have only done one, but it was figured Bubinga, and it was moderately prone to chipping at the end grain.

Dennis

Oh, a note on the fit to the pocket: the neck heel will have a finish applied to it that you don't want to scrape on the sides when the neck is adjusted. So you don't want this joint "no glue tight." By scribing the neck heel, you can get very close to "no glue tight", which is a perfect starting spot. Then a light uniform sanding of the sides of the heel should give enough clearance to keep the finish from getting rubbed. I suppose you could design a bit tighter for a neck with an oil finish, if the oil finish continued all the way past the heel.

[Grant Goltz]

Well, Kim asked me to come over here and take a look at this topic, so here I am.

It has been almost 4 years since I made my first adjustable neck joint guitar. I read through most of this topic fairly thoroughly, but kinda skimmed over the "my dog's better than your dog" parts. I figure so long as he takes the leg off any intruders, one dog's as good as the next. And, in my opinion, the same can be said for adjustable neck joints (and lots of other things). All depends on what you want out of it.

So, that said, I will try to add a bit of clarification on what I do. Now Dennis did build a guitar using my neck joint system, but I found out recently that he misunderstood some of my instructions, actually I probably just forgot to tell him.

The tenon on my joint DOES NOT bottom out in the mortise. What does contact is the outer shoulders of the neck heel at the top edge, above the upper bolt hole. This is in direct contact with the face of the neck block and gives good side to side stability. I did not see the need for the setscrews or whatever. Make the dam thing so the neck is straight to the body from the beginning and there is no need for any adjustability from then on. So that's what I do.

I think Dennis got the intonation problems because he was trying to move the pivot point lower. As I recall (correct me if I am wrong, Dennis) he was concerned about having adjustability both up and down on the neck angle. And he put the pivot point on the tenon, which is not what I do. As for intonation, you folks have pretty much covered that and my joint, as constructed, functions well within the 30 mm range you mentioned. In therory (and on paper) it may look lower, but in reality it does not work that way.

The spring does not give any slop or spongy feel, trust me. Solid as a rock. And there is really no way that it is going to fail or malfunction.

I guess the main thing is that you seem to be looking for something that can be adjusted from the outside. But I don't look at the adjustment as something you need to do every day. If things are moving around that much, there would seem to be other structural problems. I would think you are going to change strings way more often than you will ever need to do any neck adjusting, so having to loosen a couple of strings and retune them (just the center ones) does not seem like a big deal. And one of my objectives was to not change the overall appearance of the neck to body joint.

The joint I devised is as simple as I could make it. Except for the spring, everything is off the shelf. Very quick and simple to do with hand tools. I guess I like it and am satisfied that it meets my needs.

There are other systems and many more that can be devised. They probably all do or will work for somebody.

Yell if you have questions.

Grant

[Craig]

G'day Grant,

Good to have you with us , and welcome to our little forum from down under.

I'm very disappointed you have gained an impression that we have been doing a "my dog's bigger than your dog " thing. Kind of cheapens what we are trying to achieve here, and upsets me a little. It's the exact opposite of what this forum has been about , and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion ?.

This productive thread has been about developing an adjustable neck system, with the suggestions and input from our members. Kind of a group think tank, which has been a lot of fun and very interesting .With over 4000 views ,it looks like it's also been a popular topic too !

I think we have all kept a very open mind to ideas being put forward ,and haven't noticed it ever becoming a contest. Simply put ,we have been trying for an externally adjustable reliable design which is still aethetically pleasing to the eye.

Our climatic conditions are such that a guitar action can alter noticeably day by day . A 2.5 mm. action one day ,,,3mm. the next. Hence our reason for an external system ,to provide for constant EASY adjustment.

I see the top pivot adjusters as a big aid in setting up the guitar . Maybe it's just me , but I find getting the yaw of the neck, plus it's correct angle , flossing the heel cheeks etc.,a real pain with conventional building. The pivots not only provide Yaw and neck angle , but they can also adjust intonation. A big plus, and no more rotten neck resets

I'm sure this thread has provided a heap of options for those wishing to include an adjustable neck system. Folks can choose for themselves which system they prefer .
Models have included Rick Turner's , Grant Goltz, the MK.1 & 2 systems here on this thread ,plus other ideas from Tom , Dennis , Dave and others. Some may choose to use a combination of these systems , and that's fantastic. I'm sure we all look forward as to how they work out in each case.


Cheers ,Craig

[Dennis Leahy]

Hi Grant,

I have been remiss in addressing the fact that although I thought I had used the Grant Goltz adjustable neck joint, in reality I did not understand it and my variant was, well, ... yet another way. My original quasi-study of Grants early documentation was incomplete. I did think that the contact point was supposed to be the end of the tenon. And, because I had an experimental bracing pattern, I was not sure if my soundboard would belly and lift, or if it would flatten out. So, I wanted the neck to be able to adjust equally up or down. Grant cuts the end of the tenon at an angle, starting at the upper bolt position. (It is done to provide clearance for the adjustable gap.) I misinterpreted the line where the angle starts as the fulcrum, and thought I'd go one better: cut another angle in the other direction, providing clearance for the upward adjustment of the neck.

As it turned out, my tenon was too long, and I ended up cutting off the end of the tenon and then only added the lower relief angle. But, my erroneous variant did keep the fulcrum point at the end of the tenon.

I don't have a strobe tuner, so I don't know how close (in "cents") I was able to get my intonation set, but my ear says I got extremely close on most strings and very close on one or two others. Maybe the fact that I started barely on to very slightly off in the intonation department was why I can easily hear the intonation change when I adjust my neck. So, my results should not be used to correlate or substantiate or refute Grant's results.

I should also note that Grant has indeed created an adjustable neck joint that does not require the bolts to be loosened before tweaking the angle, and then re-tightened. The adjustment occurs when the lower bolt is turned. So, Craig, the slop from crossdowel/barrel nut to bolt that we are both finding is handled in Grant's system by the spring. You could take a combination of your Mark 1 and Grants system to achieve the adjustability without the additional setscrew on the bottom, if you want.

For the record, adding a pair of setscrews at the top is as easy as drilling two holes and screwing them in. (Well, that and inlaying some metal in the heel.) To me, it's one of the easiest mods to Grant's system, and provides insurance (for yaw or intonation.) Grant, I know your system is doing exactly what you wanted it to, and don't have any reason to change it. As you know, I have a tinkerers mind, and can't stop tweaking.

Dennis

[Grant Goltz]

Craig, Sorry if I came across wrong, did not mean to. The "my dog's better than your dog" comment was only refering to that near the end of the topic there appeared to be references suggesting that all of you folks efforts were not really needed because this one existing system was all anybody needed and such. So please do not be upset, that is not at all what I was trying to say.

What I will say is that I really respect what you folks are doing here and I mean to add positive input.

So back to the two setscrews and neck alignment and intonation. What I do for the alignment is just bolt the neck on solidly after I have the joint pretty well done and run a straightedge along each side of the fingerboard and make a light pencil mark at the butt end of the top so I can measure each side to see how far, if any the neck is off from perfect alignment. Then I shave off a bit from the appropriate side of the end of the neck shoulder (there is less than 2 square cm of contact on each side so it is very easy) until the neck bolts on perfectly centered. That is quick and easy and once it is done, that's it for good. It ain't gonna change. As for intonation, what I read here and my experience with my system, is that it is not really a problem because nothing moves enough to affect it. That is why I suggest that the setscrews are not really needed. My approach to things is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Now, on the other hand, if you are visualizing the setscrews as compensating for not carefully getting things correct at the beginning, that I do not recomend. That was one of the comments about my adjustable neck from the beginning, "hey you don't have to worry because the system will fix your mistakes". Wrong, this is not meant to be an excuse to do sloppy building. Now I am not suggesting that is anything that anybody here is saying, but I want to emphasize that getting it right from the start with the adjustable neck is so much easier than when you glue on the neck. You can keep taking the neck off and tweaking things until it is how you want it.

For some reason, I cannot visualize guitar action and such changing that much on a day to day basis. Even here in northern Minnesota where humidity can go from way low to saturated in 24 hours and temperature fluctuations of over 50 degrees F happen regularily on a day to day basis, we dont get that. It takes a few days for wood to respond to these changes.

But I understand that you want some kind of system that is just "right there" and can be tinkered with at a moments notice. That is fine if that is what you want. Hey, anything is fine if that is what you want. I respect that, but I am only saying don't build something you may not need just based on the theory of it.

Just trying to be helpful. Sorry to run on at the mouth so long.

Grant

[Craig]

Sorry to run on at the mouth so long.

Grant

Thanks for that welcome reply Grant and please 'run your mouth' as much as you please . Your experience , ideas and thoughts etc. are very much appreciated here.. I'm also sorry to act so defensively regarding the 'big dog 'thing and now understand what you were referring to.

We like to think our forum has a 'no bullshit' approach ,and it seems to me you're just the type of bloke we enjoy having here as a member of the anzlf. Again , welcome Grant , and I look forward to your contributions.

Cheers , Craig

[Craig]

Grant,
I have been considering the soundboard angle ,between the heel and soundhole . On a conventional guitar build we normally have that angle match the fretboard ,so as to not get that "14th fret hump" .With an adjustable system , I figure you would want a little extra room for tilt , which would require a lessor angle in that area. ( a little wiggle room to tilt both up and down)

How do you go about this ?

Cheers , Craig

[Tom Morici]

Hi Dennis,
When you said this:
What I meant about CNC was that if a luthier is carving necks and especially curved neck heels by hand, then they will all be a bit different. If the neck heels have slightly different shapes, the jig for the pocket will not work.

perhaps you missed my comment that it would take
2 fixtures, 1 to cut the heel and 1 to cut the matching mortise.

My comment about "no glue tight" was to describe how accurate a joint can be cut with a router set-up. I build my fixtures with a few thousands of play, for glue and so final sanding is minimal to allow for finish thickness. My mantra "never sand, what can be cut."

Most of my router fixtures allow scribing before the router is used, Im old school and scribing is my standard saftey measure.

I do this for a living, and offer standard styles/models. Fixtures for parts and joinery saves me countless hours. It is not for everyone.
My problem is storing the 100 plus fixtures I have built over the years.
They are a pain, but it is worth it to me.

The method that works for each of us is the correct one.

Tom

[Allen]

G'day Grant, and welcome to our forum. Your input is really appreciated, and I love the simplicity of your system.

I must say that I'm of two minds when it comes to the adjustment mechanism. For a guitar that I'm going to keep myself, I like the idea of making it easily adjustable, but one that is going to go to someone else, I'm thinking "Out of sight, out of mind". Who knows what a chronic tweaker would do with it if it was too handy.

Can you explain how you make your spring, and what it's made from?

[Tom Morici]

Hi Grant,

Welcome to the forum, Im glad you are here.

I like your neck joint method, I agree the best design is not what you add
but what you can take away or remove. Less is more. Your design is clever and well thought out.

I still like the adjustment screws as pivots, this is not to make up for a bad fit. I like the idea of tweaking the neck length feature.
I admit it could take decades before this adjustment would be needed.

Sure a shim would do the same thing on your design. So this is just the way I prefer.

Tom

[Tom Morici]

Allen,

You said:

I must say that I'm of two minds when it comes to the adjustment mechanism. For a guitar that I'm going to keep myself, I like the idea of making it easily adjustable, but one that is going to go to someone else, I'm thinking "Out of sight, out of mind". Who knows what a chronic tweaker would do with it if it was too handy.

I agree, I have been thinking the same thing.
Give a guy easy access to an adjustment screw, and he will have to
turn it, just because, why do we do that anyhow?

Tom

[Dennis Leahy]

...perhaps you missed my comment that it would take 2 fixtures, 1 to cut the heel and 1 to cut the matching mortise.

Tom

You're right, I did miss that!

I am a fan of jigs and templates, and have made plenty of router jigs (not so much for lutherie yet, but in my past life for architectural millwork and cabinetry.) A pair of jigs to create matching/nesting parts would do a similar job to a CNC.

I would not have thought of the fact that these parts need to have a little bit of clearance. I would have made them as snug as possible, and would have discovered a problem after finishing. Grant clued me in before I made the mistake. The neck heel needs to be slightly smaller than the shallow mortise/pocket - by the thickness of finish and a tiny air gap so it does not rub.

Dennis

Can you explain how you make your spring, and what it's made from?

I recently supplied a link to that same question for someone on the Luthierforum, so it is handy for me: It is documented in Grant's 1st Annual Buildoff thread, post #140: Making the Springs

[Craig]

Who knows what a chronic tweaker would do with it if it was too handy.

Geez , I think I might be one of them Allen

It's a good point ,and one Kim bought up around a couple of hundred posts ago.

Rick Turner and Mick Doolin don't seem concerned about having external adjusters. Their system must be built well enough to handle constant tweeking . Then there's the Babicz system . I'm pretty sure Gibson are producing a model using his system as well . I would think they have researched the possibility of the "chronic tweaker "
I'm sure there are others as well.

I agree it is well worth considering though Allen ( and Tom )

Hang on !! ya mean I made all those fancy ferrules for nothing !!

Dennis , regarding Grant's springs, I just checked out that link . Too cool for words and very clever. I learnt a heap . Thanks Grant !

I really admire your mastery of the router Tom . I'm still wary of router learning curves


Cheers ,Craig